If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

Did coming out publically saying they would not buy him out and he would not return kill a trade? I think it did. There are about three teams that need a PG and are interested in Tinsley, but they are calling the Pacers's bluff. They know the Pacers are desperate to move Tinsley and are going to wait it out because they can't beleive a team would pay a player that they don't want. The Heat want to rob the Pacers by asking for a lst round pick with Tinsley, the Nuggets want cash along with Tinsley, and the Warriors are the most stubborn acting like their is no one on their roster worth Tinsley. All these teams are pulling the Indy's card, because of the Pacers public blunders.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

I think most teams figured the Pacers would buy Tinsley out - so I don't see how coming out and telling everyone that they aren't going to buy him out - I don't see how that could possibly hurt his trade value.

Whether they actually said he wasn't returning I don't think hurt his trade value - actions speak louder than words, and not allowing him to practice or play in any of the preseason games I think did damage his trade value a little.

But really I think it was worth it (his trade value was terrible 3 months ago anyway) (negative trade value is what I call it) to keep him away from the team and to let the local fans realize he wasn't coming back under any circumstances.

The only thing I might disagree with is that the pacers just didn't buy him out - but if they can get a halfway decent trade somehow than it was a great decision. If he sits out the whole year - I really don't care.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

Did coming out publically saying they would not buy him out and he would not return kill a trade? I think it did. There are about three teams that need a PG and are interested in Tinsley, but they are calling the Pacers's bluff. They know the Pacers are desperate to move Tinsley and are going to wait it out because they can't beleive a team would pay a player that they don't want. The Heat want to rob the Pacers by asking for a lst round pick with Tinsley, the Nuggets want cash along with Tinsley, and the Warriors are the most stubborn acting like their is no one on their roster worth Tinsley. All these teams are pulling the Indy's card, because of the Pacers public blunders.

This, of course, assumes that the members of the league's front offices have roughly the same amount of information (or lack thereof) as the average fan on the street.

It was more important to the Pacers that they make it clear to their team and their fanbase that they were moving on from Tinsley. I'm curious as to what you would've had them do. They had traded for two new point guards: TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack. Were they supposed to bring Jamaal into camp and either (a) pretend or (b) actually let him compete for the job? How productive was that going to be?

The front offices throughout the league know who Jamaal is and have been well aware of the situation in Indy for years now. What action were the Pacers supposed to take that would make the other GM's believe something other than what everybody knew was the truth?

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

and the Warriors are the most stubborn acting like their is no one on their roster worth Tinsley. All these teams are pulling the Indy's card, because of the Pacers public blunders.

The Warriors aren't paying for Tinsley's contract. They aren't in the Tinsley "sweepstakes" and never were. (please pay no attention to that Matt Steinmetz article awhile back, as he was just getting his info from reading message boards).

The upper management (not Mullin) took exception with giving a 29 year old Baron a pretty reasonable extension because they were worried about his age, injuries, attitude, etc...and this is a guy who is a star player.

Given that, it's unlikely they'll commit $21M to a player in Tinsley with an even bigger case of those problems and who isn't anywhere near as talented as Baron.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

That's the real problem. His probably would have had trade value heading into the deadline last February.

In my opinion, more mistakes in terms of handling Tinsley were made prior to last summer, by the dysfunctional two-headed monster. I'm not sure I blame Bird for this - he probably had no trade value before Bird's statements.

It seems to me that Jim O'Brien's statements were probably more damaging than Bird's.

Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

Regardless of the statements made or not made, the two most damaging things to Tinsley's value are:

40% games missed over the last five years
Three Years - $21.6mm (Particularly that third year, given that it violates the mythical 2010 imperative)

I don't know what the Miami rumor is, as I've not heard any specifics from them. I don't think Golden State has any interest. Finally, I don't think Denver's being horribly unreasonable in asking for cash if it's really the Atkins/Hunter deal, which saves us a great deal of money in the long run.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

Regardless of the statements made or not made, the two most damaging things to Tinsley's value are:

40% games missed over the last five years
Three Years - $21.6mm (Particularly that third year, given that it violates the mythical 2010 imperative)

I don't know what the Miami rumor is, as I've not heard any specifics from them. I don't think Golden State has any interest. Finally, I don't think Denver's being horribly unreasonable in asking for cash if it's really the Atkins/Hunter deal, which saves us a great deal of money in the long run.

co-signed. acting as if GMs around the league really don't know tinsley's M.O. (and that bird / o'brien saying things publicly could negatively impact his trade value in any significant way) is a little ridiculous.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

I for one am impressed with Pacers management that they didn't buy Tinsley out or cut him. If they have to pay his contract anyway, having him on the roster as a potential trade piece down the road is far more valuable than having Croshere on the bench. At the very least, he will someday be an expiring contract that can be traded for something of value, and more likely, someone will get desperate for a PG and trade something for him this season.

As far as the subject of this thread, I seriously doubt anything said in public matters one way or the other. I'm sure that the teams with any interest in Tinsley have seen him work out in Atlanta or at least talked to him or his agent about his current condition, etc.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

Surely the title to this thread should be: "Did the Pacers ruin their chances of trading Tinsley?".

Even the answer to that question is No. If teams think the Pacers are desperate AND that Tinsley has value, they have to figure that someone will step up and take a reasonable bargain pretty soon. If they don't think he has much value, even if they *know* the Pacers are desperate they are not going to seek to acquire Tinman. In that case, the man has no trade value with that particular team anyway...and the Pacers didn't lower it by indicating they were desperate.

Also, stating that you will not buy out a player who has 3 years left on his contract is both believable and a pretty good idea when it's 21 million dollars. The fact it is believable reduces the "desperateness factor". Yes, some will say Tinsley could have another incident, but for all practical purposes, he is not a Pacer....and until this team starts competing and getting into the playoffs, another incident in the news is not going to impact perceptions that are already in the toilet. If anything, a Tinsley incident will actually highlight the fact he is banned from playing. He can act like a poster boy for the new team. Maybe we need some ads with him on one side of a fence and the rest of the team on the other. To be sure, that will be the message the Pacers emphasize.

Is it worth 21M to take the risk with the hope that we work a deal at some point to save a big chunk of it. Sure it is. It's not my money, but 21 million is more than the Simons want to throw out the window.

Just think of it this way. The Simons have lived through the brawl - one of the worst incidents in professional sports. They've lived through Ron Artest breaking cameras, making bad music and demanding a trade on national television. They've lived through Stephen Jackson with his guns-a-blazing, his mouth-a-running and his chain-a-hanging. They've lived with Shawne shacking up with a murderer, being involved in multiple incidents and skipping a court date. They've lived through half a dozen players who were probably high all the time. ....so what's the big deal with putting up with quiet, lil' ol' Jamaal Tinsley for awhile longer to save 21 million dollars?

The truth is, time changes things like perceptions and circumstances. It's worth it to the Pacers to hang onto Jamaal's contract for at least another year.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

The question has been well answered already. But I'd like to question one of the premises.

Who says the Pacers are desperate to trade Tinsley? What has anyone said to indicate desperation?

It is clear that TPTB were determined to break with the past and put a fresh new roster together. And they were determined to get costs under control as soon as possible. But trading Tinsley has always been less important to them than those objectives.

They have accomplished those goals to a laudable extent. If they could have traded Tinsley for a worse contracts, they wouldn't have done it. Sure they regret paying him. But they aren't willing to derail the main objectives in order to get rid of him.

In short, it is wrong to characterize them as desperate.

EDIT: McKey Fan just posted a further reason why they aren't desperate.^^

EDIT: I did so write that at Acapulco Joe's during lunch! And I posted it from home!

Last edited by Putnam; 10-27-2008 at 07:40 PM.

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but there's no urgency in buying Tinsley out, correct? Unless, I'm guessing, the player's union started to make a fuss out of us telling Tins to stay home.

So we just sit tight until the right trade emerges.

Yes, we sit tight.

The thing no one seems to realize is that Jamaal has little to no influence on this team. He is a follower. He is not the type of strong loud mouthed personality, like a Stephen Jackson, who can impact attitudes.

Also, the Conrad incident probably scared him straight to a certain extent. He is now well aware that even thugs in a midwestern hick town like Indy pack heat....and that he'd better stop talking smack or his mouth might get shot off. Yes, I suspect the Conrad incident made an impact.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but there's no urgency in buying Tinsley out, correct? Unless, I'm guessing, the player's union started to make a fuss out of us telling Tins to stay home.

So we just sit tight until the right trade emerges.

It is good in theory although Tinsley is like an anchor that is holding the Pacer ship from
full steam ahead. He is the last bad apple to be moved out of the barrel and does have
a slight effect on peoples perception of the Pacers. But, given the situation they are handling it as best they can.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

There's no urgency to deal with Tinsley if we don't mind having a 14 player roster. In fact his value will surely rise from negative to less negative as the season progresses and injuries occur.

Exactly, most of this talk about Tinsley having no value isn't going to hold up as the season moves on. There is going to be a point in time where a team is not going to have a choice but take Tinsley on. Just be patient. I think the best thing for all of us is to just leave this thing alone and act as if JT doesn't exist, because in reality as far as the P's are concerned he doesn't.

Re: Did The Pacers Ruin Tinsley's Trade Chances?

I applaude our FO for holding true to what they said and have not bought him out. They are truly looking for the best deal available. If they are patient enough, some team is going to be in serious need of a pg and will bite on tinsley.